Insect diversity falsifies the worldwide flood.

azadocents.org - Login
Did he bring rain forest trees too? what about the soil to preserve these trees?

A bit OT, but linked in with reproduction from a single 'kind'.News | CIRES http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0998/et0998s8.html http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry9f94.html?recid=633 So if we are to believe the Flood (and Noah`s cruise) happened in the last six millenia,those critters have been doing some diversifying ever since.

I'm with Tranquility Base in Message 2. Some things can be answered, some can't; YECs have fairly clear ideas about some of the scientific questions and a complete blank about others. That's in the nature of the problem, the fact that it's past and that the only evidence of it, a written testimony, doesn't get into these specifics, leaving us with only our -- hopefully educated -- imaginations.It's possible some insects were on board in some fashion or other with or without Noah's specific attention to them; it's likely in any case that the number of species involved was appreciably smaller than the number of species countable today, and that those today evolved from the ones on the ark; and certainly very likely that the more delicate or finicky species weren't there, but must have evolved since (Why not? You DO believe in evolution don't you? Diversity manifests through evolution after all.); OR that God saved insects in some fashion completely apart from Noah, and He has given us no clue how. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not exactly. I accept the overwhelming evidence that evolution of life from one or a few common ancestors has occured over billions of years of the history of life on earth. That is not quite the same as "believing" in evolution. The type of hyperevolution that YECs now rely on seems absurdly unlikely to me. Think about it. What you are proposing is hyperevolution at least to the level of genus, probably family and in only a few thousand years. This means of course that evolution of apes and humans from a common ancestor, which you deny the possibility of, in a few million years is actually a relatively trivial problem. You want to deny macroevolution on the one hand and propose hyper-macroevolution on the other to try to solve this dilemma with the global flood. Poof God did it! Why not do that with all the other species as well? Why go to all the trouble of building that big wooden boat? You show again why "creation science" is an oxymoron.Randy

quote:

---

I'm with Tranquility Base in Message 2. Some things can be answered, some can't; YECs have fairly clear ideas about some of the scientific questions and a complete blank about others. That's in the nature of the problem, the fact that it's past and that the only evidence of it, a written testimony, doesn't get into these specifics, leaving us with only our -- hopefully educated -- imaginations.
It's possible some insects were on board in some fashion or other with or without Noah's specific attention to them; it's likely in any case that the number of species involved was appreciably smaller than the number of species countable today, and that those today evolved from the ones on the ark; and certainly very likely that the more delicate or finicky species weren't there, but must have evolved since (Why not? You DO believe in evolution don't you? Diversity manifests through evolution after all.); OR that God saved insects in some fashion completely apart from Noah, and He has given us no clue how.

---

Well, we should be able to use genetic history to answer many of the questions about relatedness between insects, even from far in the past, right?You do accept that genes are the source of all heredity, do you not?

First, I'm not interested in the term "creation science" and don't use it. Nevertheless creationists do address themselves to scientific questions in scientific terms.By saying God saved insects some other way I am not implying anything magical.No, not "hyper." (Micro)evolution does not take anywhere near the great spans of time assumed. A few generations of separation of a portion of a population from the main population and you'll see distinct changes. Obviously the shorter the generation, as in the case of insects, the faster the evolution.I am convinced that there is a natural built-in barrier to "macro" evolution (evolution beyond the Kind), in the form of the natural reduction in genetic diversity that is the general tendency of all the selection processes that lead to speciation. The greater the change the smaller the genetic diversity. It's a natural process. If it tends to anything in this fallen world, unfortunately it tends to extinction. It is claimed that mutation counters this effect; somehow I doubt it.

I have no idea. Lot of speculation going on there.

Well, can we not tell, through genes, the relatedness between two people?And don't we expect the genes to be more similar the more closely related two people are, and less similar the less related two people are? Children, IOW, will share more of their parent's genes than they will of their grandparent's, or their great-grandparents, etc.Why wouldn't this work with all life, for as far back as we wanted to go, if genes work exactly the same in all organisms (which they seem to)?

I have no idea. Instead of interrogating me, why don't you present your thesis? Start a thread on it. Let's see your evidence.

You have no idea?You don't think that DNA testing is a valid way of identifying paternity?

quote:

---

A few generations of separation of a portion of a population from the main population and you'll see distinct changes.

---

That's not always true.

quote:

---

First, I'm not interested in the term "creation science" and don't use it. Nevertheless creationists do address themselves to scientific questions in scientific terms.

---

They try but usually hash it up pretty badly.

quote:

---

By saying God saved insects some other way I am not implying anything magical.

---

So God saved them somehow but not by magic and this after He said He would destroy every creeping thing not on the ark. Hmm.

quote:

---

No, not "hyper." (Micro)evolution does not take anywhere near the great spans of time assumed. A few generations of separation of a portion of a population from the main population and you'll see distinct changes. Obviously the shorter the generation, as in the case of insects, the faster the evolution.

---

We are not talking about what creationists call microevolution here. What do you think that a kind is? Is it at the genus level? Do you know that there are at least 850,000 species of insects known from thousands of genera and at least hundreds of families. How about mayflies? Would you consider them a kind? There are about 1500 species known. Most live only in fresh water, some only in fresh running water and many have adult life spans of only a few hours. They could not have survived a global flood on or off an ark. It would take hypermacroevolution to get the mayfly "kind" from some "kind" of insect that might have survive the flood.Consider the Cicada "kind". There are about 1000 species of cicada and all spend most of their life cycle living in the ground where they feed on the roots of living trees. If the tree die they die and if the area is flooded they drown. How could they have survived a global flood? What "kind" of insect that might have survived the flood could they have hyperevolved from.

quote:

---

I am convinced that there is a natural built-in barrier to "macro" evolution (evolution beyond the Kind), in the form of the natural reduction in genetic diversity that is the general tendency of all the selection processes that lead to speciation. The greater the change the smaller the genetic diversity. It's a natural process. If it tends to anything in this fallen world, unfortunately it tends to extinction. It is claimed that mutation counters this effect; somehow I doubt it.

---

This doesn't actually make much sense to me but if it did you would have just ruled out hyperevolution to explain the reestablishment of a million or so insect species after the flood since many "kinds" of insects could not have survive the flood on or off the ark.Randy

Genesis 7 (King James Version)19
And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
21
And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22
all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23
and every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.the bible explicitly says that nothing survived outside the ark
so that means there were no "floating vegetation arks"ALL SO \/ \/ \/ \/ \/
Genesis 7, 22
all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.the Bristlecone pines that grow in California-Nevada border contradict Genesis 7, 22The oldest living tree known is a Bristlecone Pine known as "Methuselah" located at an elevation of 10,400 feet in the White Mountains on the California-Nevada border. The tree is estimated to be 4,767 years old. It stands about 55 feet tall, with a misshapen oval-shaped trunk measuring about 4 1/2 feet wide.
alive 1500 yrs before the flood and still alive today, didnt the bible say god killed everything on the dry land. hmmm

One thing that puzzles me on the evo argument here. The story of the Flood records that "the Lord" closed the door to the Ark himself, right? That's a very unusual statement in the Bible because it suggests a direct physical action by God. Now whether you want to see it that way, the story itself involves God causing the Flood, and so the truth is that it is impossible for science based on the technology today to falsify the story of the Flood.It is possible to falsify perhaps a certain theory on how the Flood occurred. For example, if one says the Flood happened this way, you might could prove or disprove that to a certain degree, but to claim the story itself is falsified is ludicrous.

Bristlecone pine:1) is "estimated" to be 4,767 years old, which is only 267 years before the estimated time of the flood, that too being an estimate.2) The Bible doesn't say all plant life died. All the terms apply to animal life. Possibly some plant life survived.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.